Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Why Overturning Roe v. Wade Is a Non-Issue

Oooooookay... The veteran is going to break this one down for you Barney-style (as we say in the Corps). The Supreme Court should not (and WILL not) overturn Roe v. Wade. There are a multitude of very complicated reasons for this, but the ol' vet's going to give you one of the simpler ones: The decision of Roe v. Wade is based heavily (almost entirely) on the premise of an implied right to privacy in the Constitution (this is based partially on Amendments III-V, as well as a few other lines). When Roe v. Wade was decided, it became a major affirmation of that right. The two are intertwined on a high level. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, Constitutional constructionists will be able to easily argue that the right to privacy is non-existent, and therefore, need not be observed beyond those instances specifically cited in the Bill of Rights. Let me put this into perspective for you...

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, within the proceeding years we face the possibility of:
-Child Protective Services performing random, unannounced inspections (whether you're home or not)
-Properties other than residences being subject to search or inspection without warrant (yes, you Conservatives, that means your places of business)
-Stronger laws governing how you have sex, when you have sex, and IF you have sex
-and various other possible infringements.

The Supreme Court will not take such possibilities lightly. Yes, the possibility exists that enough of the court is mad enough to take the chance, but it's highly unlikely.

6 Comments:

Blogger Mad Mod said...

I love this guy. Did I mention that I love this guy?

-Mod

1/28/2006 5:42 PM  
Blogger joloco said...

One can only hope what you say is true. Yet the soon to be five most conservative members of the court will be Roman Catholic. When it comes to religious belief I think these five may say damn the Constitution. They speak from a higher authority.

1/29/2006 12:58 PM  
Blogger Mad Mod said...

It's possible... Strangely enough, though, most Catholics, while being staunchly pro-life, aren't as hardcore about it as many protestants (notably, staunch Baptists). But if they're REPUBLICAN Catholics...

1/29/2006 2:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

your theory went out the window in the 8th line.. right to privacy went down the toilet when bush took ofc..

now i'm gonna go watch the superbowl and not even get into this debate

sincerelly,
prochoicer baby!

2/05/2006 7:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

may i add to the above it is a touchy subject and not black and white.. i do not believe a 'dot' is a human, i do not believe human life is all that valuabe, after all there are billions of us everywhere and more to come..

i do not believe it should be used as birth control and i do believe in the sterilization of unfit females who keep breeding and male rapists and sex offenders

i do not believe in abortion beyond 11 wks (approx) unless severe damage is found and it's more humane to abort..

2/05/2006 7:54 PM  
Blogger Mad Mod said...

Hey, I'm just arguing the constitutional side of it. If you guys want to go into the other aspects, be my guest. Hell, if you've got an argument you think is well-written, logical, and detailed, I'll even post it here for you. Please include any pertinent info you'd like posted so you'll receive proper credit (i.e., blog and/or site name, whatever else). Believe me, I fully agree with a woman's right to choose. Realistically, however, that argument isn't going to strongly affect a decision on the legal level. That's why I didn't choose to use it.

2/21/2006 2:28 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home